Religious expression

Consider the cheerleaders

THE Kountze Lions, a high-school football team from east Texas, are having a good season. Their all-time win percentage is 38%. Thus far this year, they're five for seven. The problem is that the Lions have, perhaps, posted these gains after making illicit use of performance-enhancing prayer. Since the start of the year the school's cheerleading squad has been displaying banners painted with Bible verses (like the one pictured above). It's common at high-school football games for the team to run onto the field by bursting through such banners like the Kool-Aid man, but it's not common for the banners to carry religious messages, because public schools aren't supposed to promote religion. Last month, accordingly, the district's superintendent banned such banners, but on October 18th a district court ruled that the school can't enforce the ban for the time being.

At a press conference in support of the cheerleaders last week Rick Perry, the governor, and Greg Abbott, the state's attorney-general, were looking like Christmas, and I do mean Christmas, had come early. America's constitution separates church and state, as indeed does the Texas version. But Texas's contemporary political leaders have notably declined to give the principle much respect. The controversy had given them a chance to stand up for Texas, high-school football, cheerleaders, God, and the constitutionally enshrined right to free expression, all in one go, against the interference of—as Mr Abbott put it, in an incredulous tone—"an atheist group from Wisconsin".

The speech rights of students are often debated, because if a student is in public school, as most American students are, a lot of their self-expression happens under the auspices of a governmental entity. Broadly speaking, it's probably constitutionally correct to say that students have the right to put Bible verses on banners, just like all Americans do. And if the complaint is that an outside observer would assume that any student doing so is working under the auspices of school authority, Mr Abbott and Mr Perry would probably still be on firm footing. The exercise of rights shouldn't be curtailed simply because of other people's perceptions and preferences.

A wrinkle here, though, is that courts have already taken the position that cheerleaders are representatives of the school, even agents of the school's authority. Ian Millhiser, at ThinkProgress, notes that this point was considered legally relevant in another recent case in Texas: in 2010 a cheerleader in Silsbee was kicked off the squad after refusing to cheer for one of the players. The girl had accused the boy of raping her; he later pled guilty to simple assault. She sued the school, arguing that by kicking her off the squad, it had violated her rights to free expression. The Fifth Circuit court ruled against her, and its reasoning was that as a cheerleader, she was supposed to speak on behalf of the school, not on behalf of herself. A less directly relevant example, which nevertheless suggests that cheerleading is serious business, would be the case of Crystal City, where the high school's discriminatory policy against Mexican-American girls who wanted to be cheerleaders led to several years of protests, starting in 1969, on behalf of Chicano rights. (One of the young activists who organised those protests, José Angel Gutiérrez, would go on to co-found and lead La Raza Unida.)

In other words, courts have held, and Texans believe, that cheerleaders are a special subset of students, and not just for the reasons dramatised in John Hughes movies and Taylor Swift songs. They're not people who happen to be standing on the football field, exercising their right to free speech. They're deputies of the school administration; they speak for the school, not themselves. That was the point of the Fifth Circuit's ruling, anyway. So which is it? Do cheerleaders speak as themselves or not?

It's unsurprising but significant that Mr Perry and Mr Abbott would argue otherwise. Neither of them can get through a press conference lately, including the aforementioned one, without deflecting a question about whether he's running for governor in 2014. Mr Abbott is also a Republican, and might be willing to challenge Mr Perry in the primary; a widespread opinion among Texas politicos is that should Mr Perry stand for another term, Mr Abbott has a better shot of beating him than anyone else, in the primary or the general. Polls have shown that a large majority of Texas voters support the separation of church and state, and everyone knows that the state's changing demographics could mean trouble for Texas Republicans. But if Texas's leadership is going to continue to dabble in the culture wars, it's a solid sign that the shift isn't afoot just yet.

Of course the public should not be compelled to support religious speech by governmental institutions. The cheerleaders in this case have some self funding: their signs, their uniforms. But they also have a great deal of tax payer funded equipment: the football field, the insurance premiums, police protection for the games, the electricity bill for night games, etc. Tax payers can not opt out of paying their school taxes. Therefore this is clearly a case of the government promoting one religion over others and that is forbidden by the first amendment. This has been repeatedly upheld by our highest courts. They need to start respecting the law of the land and support the, can I get a C-O-N-S-T-I- you get my point.

It's hard for me to get worked up over this. I'm no fan of religion; it would be closer to say that I am actually a foe. But I can't really see how anyone is hurt by the cheerleaders' actions here. This is much less government endorsement of religion as just letting people do what they want to do (even though I personally think it's dumb).

I also want to point out that -- only somewhat facetiously -- that I think high school football is probably the bigger religion in Texas than Christianity.

I support the separation of church and state, but I'm instinctively clenchy when we get overly careful about it. If I had any tolerance for the whininess of every single individual I see publicly supporting prayer and religious symbols in school, I would probably agree with them more.

I tend to think that the proper separation of church and state recognizes the religiosity of the community without trying to encourage or suppress it.

Isn't violently destroying a banner with a Biblical verse kind of anti-Christian? Is it okay if everyone agrees to think "Yay baby Jesus!" while they rip apart his words, but not okay if you suspect people are thinking it's an act of desecration while they do it?

Quoting the bible should be no different than quoting literature or punk rock. All it is a book with some inspiring passages. The problem is that the banner above with its reference to God and religious tone is just too religious for a public school. I'm sure there are plenty of Christian schools in Texas--if you want god all tangled up in your education, you can go to one of them. If you want a free, tax payer funded education, go to public school and practice your religion after 3pm. What on earth is so difficult about that? And to the Texas cheerleaders above, try quoting something else on your next banner. I'm sure you can find an equally inspiring message hidden someone in your English or history homework or even at the local record store.

Were it not so cruelly pathetic it would be funny: young skimpily-dressed cheerleaders often in some very provocative poses, sporting shorts in the flag of die-hard slave owners...espousing Holy Scripture!

One wonders who should be offended - atheists or devout believers. It would seem that no serious churchgoer could support such a display. At any rate, sex and violence (football) have been popular since Caligula and the gladiators. No surprise that such propaganda should go down so well with the proletariat of the American plains.

Politics and religion should never be mixed at all as we are huma emotion tied to us with the families of other many in the to seat or lower seat I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA I am surprised ECONOMIST brought this subject that was/is long time wanted

Why is it, Medicine4theDead, your words--which are so full of venom and hate--seem better to you than those of people who are encouraging each other to love one another and persevere?

Whether you agree with Christianity or any religion or not, there are definitely radicals in every religious group that do crazy things like drink cool-aid or blow themselves up, but they are very often confused with the overwhelming vast majority that are true adherents and not radical in any destructive way. There are even radicals that go around verbally assaulting others by berating and ridiculing them, but that is the "religion" you belong to, not the Christians portrayed in the article.

The banner above says, "Let us run with endurance the race which God has set before us." Those words do not directly hurt you or revile your obviously differing "beliefs" (in quotes so respectfully not to be confused with religious beliefs). In fairness, neither would "allahu akbar" cause you any personal harm. However, your hate speech about those who express their religious beliefs is personally demeaning and degrading and runs contrary to the ideals of the Constitution of the United States which is so often referenced here.

Quick history reminder: Most people came to the U.S. in the first place to escape religious persecution and you carry on that tradition of persecution that drove people to leave their homes and risk certain death to cross a vast ocean in faint hope of escaping it. The country was founded on eliminating or at least reducing religious persecution, sadly has strayed in some areas, but remains one of the few places on earth where it is legal for citizens to express whatever religious belief suits them. I don't care if your demeaning toward Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Baha'i s, Atheists, or any other group, that behavior is un-American and unacceptable.

Momma had the best advice in this matter and I'll remind you: If you don't have anything nice (or kind, or helpful, or encouraging, etc.) to say, don't say anything at all. Look around, there are plenty of helpful comments from all sides of this subject that are not vicious, cruel personal attacks on others or their beliefs yet provide interesting insight into differing view points concerning the very real issue of whether it is right for these school ambassadors to endorse an overtly religious sentiment.

The point of this piece is toleration of opposing views. If my daughter had been in the room where the sign was being made and said, 'Gee, why don't we this week make a sign that quotes that old Hebrew guy or that old Arab instead of just Jesus?' How long would she be a cheerleader?

The banner and the subsequent charge through it does not promote, condone or condemn a particular religion. Indeed, I cannot see how it could be construed to promote any particular religion over another. The Constitution forbids governmental entities from promoting or establishing a state religion - not the free exercise thereof. If you think that a bible verse on a paper that gets tossed or burned afterward constitutes promoting, then perhaps you get a little too worked up about things of small to insignificant import.

I would much rather spend this effort on determining why our public schools are lacking. Why our kids are less and less prepared for college and competing in a global economy. Why, despite years of increased funding - our public education system continues to lag the developed world. I would much rather see the kids write something about mass, power and velocity and the equations that define them on their tunnel banners. I would much rather they write about balancing debits and credits and the positive outcome that occurs from sound financial fundamentals in the home. That being said, this is much ado about nothing and signifies our national inability to focus on real issues of large import and, rather, focus on those which allow us to play the victim or the somehow harmed individual against the "oppressive" state. The drama is tiresome. Especially when the real issues get ignored at worst or glossed over at best.

The phrase "...Standing up for the truth against deluded religious beliefs" is, in and of itself, an example of high drama without purpose, in my opinion. So now, if I understand you correctly, you are ordained with some uncanny ability of "Truth" discernment that these kids and their parents are obviously not so gifted with?

Is that a difficult burden to carry? Or, does it merely yet again fit in with my point about a deluded sense of self import that feels compelled to point out each and every "flaw" (term loosely used) of human kind that doesn't coincide with yours and make an issue of it? Is your offense taken to this banner, in your opinion, more important than letting kids express themselves in a perfectly legal manner?

Again - Establishment of a religion is unconstitutional. Not the free exercise or disavowment of, or complete disdain for. I am much more worried about these kids being able to read and write, getting a job or into the college of your choice more han the choice of words on a banner they run through before a sporting contest. Good grief. Do you self-immolate, as well?

Yes, it is called science. Maybe you have heard of it. It is the reason you are able to put messages onto the Internet. When I was a boy, a gentleman by the name of Jim Jones convinced his Christian followers that he was the messiah and got them to kill themselves and each other. It isn't about the words, it is about imposing a deluded belief system onto others. Don't like me confronting the deluded? Then don't be deluded. Last time I checked, delusions weren't protected by the Constitution.

So it must really bother you that we have on our currency (USD) " in GOD we trust. The Saudi's don't mind our money at all, as a matter fact most foreign country's invest quit heavy in our American company's and US dollar and they can give a hoot about the words in GOD we trust on it. It's a joke people like you are so bothered by this . You know it's always the people that are afraid and not so sure of them self that are most bothered. At least believing in GOD does not depict anyone religion . Science has no conscious or morals to live by. Society is far better off having someone to fear . Just as we did as kids growing up fearing the consequences from our parents . As adults we also need fear to live peacefully with each other. I'm not against science and even if some day science could prove their is no GOD . For a civil society it's better not to know.

Yes, God's seen where strippers put that money and says he would like In God We Trust scraped off. Actually, I don't have to see it because with a simple black pen you can write over it and remove it. Duh.

Sadly, your ignorance is profound. It is your assertion that God exists, yet apparently, you think it acceptable socialize the proving of that off onto others like a freeloading godless commie. Science is what makes us moral because it proves with facts and evidence how closely related we are. It was Darwin's work that proved minorities and whites were really the same species and that minorities weren't meant to be slaves like the bible says. Maybe if you put a veil over Jesus, you can hide your ignorance from him.

Why is it, Medicine4theDead, your words--which are so full of venom and hate--seem better to you than those of people who are encouraging each other to love one another and persevere?

Whether you agree with Christianity or any religion or not, there are definitely radicals in every religious group that do crazy things like drink cool-aid or blow themselves up, but they are so often confused with the overwhelming vast majority that are true adherents and not radical in any destructive way. There are even radicals that go around verbally assaulting others by berating and ridiculing them, but that is the "religion" you belong to, not the Christians portrayed in the article.

The banner above says, "Let us run with endurance the race which God has set before us." Those words do not directly hurt you or revile your obviously differing "beliefs" (in quotes so respectfully not to be confused with religious beliefs). In fairness, neither would "allahu akbar" cause you any personal harm. However, your hate speech about those who express their religious beliefs is personally demeaning and degrading and runs contrary to the ideals of the Constitution of the United States which is so often referenced here.

Quick history reminder: Most people came to the U.S. in the first place to escape religious persecution and you carry on that tradition of persecution that drove people to leave their homes and risk certain death to cross a vast ocean in faint hope of escaping it. The country was founded on eliminating or at least reducing religious persecution, sadly has strayed in some areas, but remains one of the few places on earth where it is legal for citizens to express whatever religious belief suits them. I don't care if your demeaning toward Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Baha'i s, Athiests, or any other group, that behavior is un-American and unacceptable.

Momma had the best advice in this matter and I'll remind you: If you don't have anything nice (or kind, or helpful, or encouraging, etc.) to say, don't say anything at all. Look around, there are plenty of helpful comments from all sides of this subject that are not vicious, cruel personal attacks on others or their beliefs yet provide interesting insight into differing view points concerning the very real issue of whether it is right for these school ambassadors to endorse an overtly religious sentiment.

I think it is important to remember, that according to Christianity, Jesus doubted god three times: desert, olive mount, cross. If Jesus gets to doubt god, I do to and so I say, religious beliefs are delusions since they have no basis in fact or evidence thus the term faith. You do understand what faith means? I am sorry that you have so little faith that you find it an insult for someone to question those beliefs because they have no basis in fact. Maybe you think it sweet and kind to lie to people; to fill their heads with delusions and fantasies while pretending it is real, but I don't. I find it insulting and a bit despicable to prey on people because of the way they are. And I will fight that with a bit of anger and venom, and if you don't like it, I don't care. And so much for turning the other cheek and all.

Seems to me they are disrespecting their own religion. It appears they are implying God loves them more than he does their opponent.They are spokesperson for their school and an flagrant violation Church and State. I don't see football played in church , so church should not be on a taxpayer bought football field

“....high-school football, cheerleaders, God, and the constitutionally
enshrined right to free expression...”
This is a hallucination at its highest. This country lost its reasoning
and because it is in a delusional state, can be dangerous to whole
humanity.

Mixing the reality with fiction became the rule not only in Texas
which is run by the bigots reminding Arthur Miller’s The Crucibles.

In the meantime, Romney like characters can be elected as
Presidents, and dysfunctional, extractive political system
will be preserved. Status quo must be maintained!
I become speechless... What about you?

So why do we even have Culture Wars now?
-
That should be the real question, and its simply for the fact that beyond the Founder Fathers wildest Nightmares Government has grown so large and become so enmeshed in everyones basic lives that something as simple as a HS Football game cannot escape its totalarian controlling grasp.
-
Things such as gay marriage, abortion, drugs, religion would all be moot if as the Founders intended there was true liberty and freedom of association, but since Government control is soo absolute, we now have constant Culture Wars to control Government to control/determine our lives, we cannot escape it and have no freedom from it, Government owns our lives.

Partly true but many aspects of the Culture Wars have nothing to do with government, like the uproar that department store clerks say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". There's no government intrusion, the store just wants people of all creeds and persuasions to spend money there and so decides to go generic in order not to put anyone off.

It's because religious zealots want to use government to enforce their religious views on the minority, in spite of Constitutional protections that respect the individual's liberty to choose his own faith.

As someone who was very active for years in the secular movement in the United States and knows the Freedom From Religion Foundation's leadership personally (the group referred to as the "atheist group from Wisconsin"), I would offer this for consideration:

If the banners championed a religious message other than Christian, you can be quite certain they would never have made it to the field. Certainly not in a small town in the southern United States. This is not an issue of Christians being denied their freedom of speech or religion, it's an issue of Christians being told they may not force their religion upon others. And you don't have to work hard to discover that fact for yourself - many are quite open and honest that the Christian message deserves to be heard above all others because, according to many American Conservatives, we live in a "Christian Nation", in spite of all historical evidence to the contrary.

What many American Christians have not learned to appreciate is the fact that keeping government out of their religion has been a benefit, not a burden to them. When I was active in the secular movement, many of us used to joke that the quickest way to get rid of religion would be to support government endorsement. American Christians should consider the long term consequences of taking something that is supposed to provide a deep sense of meaning and belittling it on a destructible football banner.

It is despicable that these cheerleaders use school events to promote their religion over others. The crusade by religious fanatics to undermine the American Constitution and destroy one of its founding principles continues unabated.

The Consitution says that "Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion," but the second clause of that sentence says, "Nor interfere with the free practice there of." Unless someone is declaring these cheerleaders to be Congress, let them freely practice. The left certainly wouldn't be making a fuss if these girls were instead using drugs, getting drunk or pregnant. Anything that keeps these kids in school and out of trouble is a good thing.

Right! Now I want both parties to organise, for every session of either house,a pyramid of pompom wielding, high-kicking cheerleaders past whom all the congressmen/women run as they take their seat. Obviously no religious slogans allowed.

Less seriously, I would point out the US has a proud and useful tradition or interpreting every part of the 1st amendment more broadly than the literal words require, so allowing to schools to promote religion even a little bit is traditionally ssen as "establishing a religion". Also it's pretty clear that the official school cheerleading team is a PR arm of the school.

I understand that this type of activity is prohibited by the Supreme Court ruling, which equates ANY mention of God by anyone at school as a violation of the separation of Church and State. However, if you actually study the Constitution in its historical perspective, I believe it meant EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers wrote; namely, the "Congress" shall not get involved with "establishing" a religion. This was in response to colonies like Boston, where dissenters were exiled or hung; or Virginia, where you had to tithe to the Anglican Church whether you were a member or not. Since each colony thought of itself as sovereign, I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling that the Separation Clause should also apply to the state legislatures. But I simply do not agree that the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to be a vehicle for eradicating religion in America. After all, didn't John Adams say, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” For the record, I am an atheist.

"I understand that this type of activity is prohibited by the Supreme Court ruling, which equates ANY mention of God by anyone at school as a violation of the separation of Church and State."
Your understanding is incorrect. Clearly mention of God or gods is allowed in comparative religious classes at public universities, and individual students are allowed to pray when they please as long as doing so is not disruptive. Even teachers may pray when they wish, as long as their actions cannot be construed as a state endorsement of religion. Stop beating the straw man.

OK, yes, you can also mention God in a class on comparative religions. That does not contradict my point. The Founding Fathers intended that "Government" not establish a state church. They had no intention of, nor considered that the First Amendment would be, or could be used to stamp out Christianity as practice by the people. Like most of the Constitution, the First Amendment was meant to put limits on Government action; not to limit the freedoms of the people.